Featured

California woman says she was raped by Rep. Eric Swalwell in 2018

A new rape allegation against Rep. Eric Swalwell surfaced as he exits a California governor bid and says he will resign from Congress, but the public record so far is largely a press-conference claim pending any law-enforcement filing or corroboration.

Apr 14, 2026

Featured

Trump turns against ‘unacceptable’ Meloni

Trump publicly breaks with Giorgia Meloni after she criticized his remarks about the pope, turning a once-useful alliance into a political liability with consequences for Italy–U.S. relations.

Apr 14, 2026

Buried.News

The stories buried under the noise

Primary focus

Trump fires Kristi Noem as Homeland Security Secretary

A Cabinet secretary was forced out amid contracting and oversight scrutiny, signaling that executive control—not transparent accountability—can dictate leadership of the agency driving mass detention and deportation.

Mar 5, 2026

Featured

Trump’s Acting A.G. Says He Won’t Release Even One More Epstein File

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche says DOJ has released “everything” in the Epstein files, but lawmakers and prior reporting point to millions of pages still withheld and heavy redactions that keep public accountability out of reach.

Apr 14, 2026

Featured

CNN Data Guru Predicts Major Disaster for Trump After Dems Flip Mar-a-Lago

A Democrat flipping the Florida district that includes Mar-a-Lago is real news, but using it to “predict” a national midterm wave oversells what one low-turnout special election can prove.

Mar 25, 2026

Norms Impact

A Ludicrous New Supreme Court Decision Could Grant Trump Presidential Power Not Seen Since King George III

The Court used the shadow docket to let presidents sidestep Congress’s removal limits, hollowing out independent agencies and pushing our system toward unchecked executive control.

Judiciary

May 23, 2025

Sources

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a64864735/supreme-court-trump-v-wilcox-amy-coney-barrett/

Summary

The Supreme Court’s shadow-docket action in Trump v. Wilcox allowed the president’s firings of congressionally protected agency heads to remain in effect while litigation proceeds. The move signals a willingness to discard the 1935 framework that permits independent agencies to exist within the executive branch under statutory limits on removal. In practice, it shifts immediate control of key regulatory and enforcement institutions toward presidential patronage and away from congressional design.

Reality Check

This kind of judicially enabled removal power rewires accountability by letting one person effectively seize control of institutions Congress deliberately insulated from political retaliation. Nothing in the described conduct reads as a clean fit for a prosecutable crime; it is a structural breach—an erosion of separation of powers and anti-patronage norms—rather than a bribery or obstruction fact pattern. When statutory “for-cause” protections can be neutralized by interim orders, our rights become contingent on presidential favor, not durable law.

Detail

On Thursday, Justice Amy Coney Barrett participated in a shadow-docket decision in Trump v. Wilcox et. al.. The Court ruled that the president’s firing of the heads of executive agencies created by Congress should stand while their cases are adjudicated, even where Congress has mandated that removal is not at the president’s discretion.

The decision left the fired officials out of office during ongoing litigation. A dissent by Justice Elena Kagan criticized the majority for disregarding long-standing precedent and for not addressing the controlling 1935 decision, Humphrey’s Executor, which recognized statutory limits on presidential removal power for certain independent agencies. The dissent also highlighted an exception the majority created for the Federal Reserve Board.

The action followed Barrett’s earlier recusal the same day from a separate Supreme Court matter involving Oklahoma’s effort to use public funding to help establish a religious charter school; that recusal produced a 4–4 split, leaving a lower-court block in place.